Poverty does not CAUSE crime. I myself have been homeless, not knowing where my next meal would be coming from. I have gone without any food whatsoever for days at a time.
You said: The bottom line is this: Ghetto poor kids don't care much about morals, but cold CASH! That not only proves my point that lack of morals is the cause for crime, but also points out that they have not been taught strong moral values as much as they have been taught street-smart (more like street-dumb) values. If they cared more about morals they would not be committing crimes.
It is too bad that your example drug person did not acquire good morals but instead only fear of the consequences for doing wrong. I hope his gambling career does not wind up one of cheating in order to win more cash. Without a moral compass he is almost destined to pursue a life of cheating and stealing wherever he feels he has a sure thing.
Consider this:
Calcutta has the lowest crime rate in the world because of the civilising effect of books, Amartya Sen said today in his keynote opening address at the London Book Fair. http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090421/jsp/foreign/story_10852684.jsp We all know that the poverty in Calcutta is of epic proportions. A million people have died of starvation there in a single year, yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world.
The point is, poverty has never made a poor person commit a crime. It may make certain crimes more tempting, but it doesn't make them do it. People have to take responsibility for their own behavior. It is true that poor people do not have the same advantages as rich people. That does not give them a free pass to commit crime. It should provide them with more incentive to work hard and make money the honest way. That is how poor people come to this country and work their way up from busboys to restaurant owners with no help but their own determination to make it. They save every dime. But in our culture, part of poverty is having large flat screen TVs, boomboxes, and all the rest. In our culture, it's not how you live, but how much money and how many possessions you have. That shows a distinct lack of good moral underpinning.
I knew one guy who lived under a bridge on a bed propped up on milk crates to prevent the floods from washing him out. He was trying to work his way off the street. He had acquired a suit, a shirt, socks, and a tie from donations and rummaging. He only lacked a pair of shoes to go to a job interview. He also had saved enough money to support himself for a month or so when he did find a job. Then ,someone stole his money from his hiding place in the camp. He did not resort to crime. He continued to save every dime he could get for donations, odd jobs, salvage, whatever. He finally saved up enough money again. He still did not have the size 13 shoes he needed to make himself presentable. Finally, my boss, who I had told of his need, gave me a pair of size 13 shoes to give to him. With that, he went to the job interview he had his eye on, got the job, moved out from the bridge, and I never saw him again except one time he visited the bridge to see his old friends. His street name was "Ice," and Ice was a cool customer. He kept the faith and worked his way out of utter poverty without stealing or selling drugs. Unfortunately, everyone else laid back in their addictions, several died of drugs or alcohol or exposure or AIDS, and I suppose many are still roaming around the streets of Washington, DC. And even of those, not all are drug dealers and not all are thieves. They know that it is their choice; poverty does not take them by the hand and force them to commit crime.
:laugh:
